HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/21/2021
Jeff Hansen, Chair Virtual Hearing
Michelle Haefele, Vice Chair Zoom Webinar
Per Hogestad
David Katz
Jeff Schneider
Ted Shepard Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 &
William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
January 21, 2021
Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard, Whitley
Absent: None
Staff Present: Sizemore, Yatabe, Wray, Overton, Kleer, Frickey, Stephens, Betley, Hahn, Benton, Everette,
Sith, Mchaffey, Claypool and Manno
Chair Hansen provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of
business. He described the following procedures:
• While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen
input is valued and appreciated.
• The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item.
• Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land
Use Code.
• Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed
for that as well.
• This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that
everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.
Agenda Review
Interim Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion Agendas stating all items will be
heard as originally advertised.
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
Planning & Zoning Board
January 21, 2021
Page 2 of 11
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda:
None.
Consent Agenda:
1. Draft Minutes from December 17, 2020, P&Z Hearing
2. CDOT Port of Entry SPAR
3. 2020 Annual Report
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
None.
Member Whitley made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve all items on the Consent
Agenda for the January 21, 2021 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Vice Chair Haefele seconded the
motion. Vote: 7:0.
Chair Hansen commented on the CDOT Port of Entry plan and stated the proposed structure is attractive and
appropriate for the agricultural nature of Fort Collins.
Discussion Agenda:
4. H-25 Multi-Family
Manno reported staff has received an email from Mike Feldhousen regarding the design and architecture of the
project. He is in support of the project with changes to the look of the development.
(**Secretary’s Note: Chair Hansen withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.)
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Meaghan Overton, Senior City Planner, stated this hearing was continued from the November meeting. She
provided a site overview noting the project is located on 15.7 acres at the southeast corner of Harmony and Strauss
Cabin Roads. She stated the project proposes 304 multi-family apartments across ten three-story buildings and
one two-story building as well as a one-story clubhouse and pool amenity building and two single-story garage
buildings. Overton noted the Board approved one modification of standard related to orientation to a connecting
walkway at the November hearing.
Overton stated the Board raised concerns during deliberation at the November hearing about the project’s
compliance with two sections of the Land Use Code dealing with the architectural variation among the buildings and
the definition and identification of the entrances of the buildings. She noted the applicant has revised the
architecture and approach to building entries and has added definition and variation to the entry features
throughout the development to respond to the Board’s concerns.
Ryan McBreen, Norris Design, discussed bicycle access and the overall connectivity of the project. He detailed the
street-like private drive and trail connectivity.
Chris Aronson, VFLA Architecture, discussed the proposed revisions to the five 24-plex buildings in terms of
massing, materials, and rooflines. He also noted the plans have been revised to better enhance and provide a
variety of entry features throughout the project. He showed slides detailing the proposed revisions to the
architecture, color palette, and materials.
Kelly Savage, Norris Design, discussed landscape enhancements that have been made to support the architectural
enhancements at building entries.
Planning & Zoning Board
January 21, 2021
Page 3 of 11
Overton stated the staff analysis is focused on the two Land Use Code sections which were discussed by the Board
at the November hearing and which were addressed by the proposed changes to the plan. She stated staff finds
the project complies with Section 3.8.30 for multi-family standards. Additionally, she stated staff finds the revisions
to the building architecture of the 24-unit buildings do more fully address Section 3.8.30(F)(2) and that the revisions
to the entry features more fully address Section 3.8.30(F)(4). She stated staff recommends approval of the project.
Member Katz asked about materials used in certain specific locations. Mr. Aronson replied.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
None.
Board Questions / Deliberation
Member Hogestad asked if there is a variation in the roofline or the eave line. Mr. Aronson replied the variation is
in the eave line.
Member Hogestad asked how the revisions to the 24-unit buildings make them better blend with the 36-unit
buildings. Mr. Aronson replied the goal was to provide more diversity and he commented on the use of parapets,
stone massing, and the use of entry features to create a common language throughout the project, particularly at
the pedestrian level.
Member Shepard suggested a bench or seat wall should be provided at the type 3 entry. Mr. McBreen replied that
change could be made.
Member Hogestad expressed concern the entries are lost in the overall elevations. He stated the placement of
seating features could be helpful. Mr. Aronson replied that was a significant point of discussion during the redesign
and he commented on the need to identify entries from both a vehicular and pedestrian perspective.
Member Hogestad encouraged the use of some type of feature that goes beyond the architecture itself to signal the
entry locations. He stated the redesign misses that Code requirement.
Mr. McBreen commented on the previous Board discussion during which scaling back the entries was discussed.
Member Shepard asked the design team if the balconies next to the entry features could be differentiated from the
entry features through color, material, or railing to create more of a distinction. He also suggested focusing on the
entrances that face the street rather than the ones that face outside. Mr. Aronson replied the entries will be natural
stained wood and the balconies will have steel railings.
Member Hogestad stated that material change may not be enough architectural language to truly understand what
is private and what is public.
Member Katz stated he does not believe Member Hogestad is wrong; however, he acknowledged it is difficult to
assume from the drawings what it will actually look and feel like. He stated a bench could help; however, the
applicant has already acknowledged that.
Mr. Aronson noted the previous discussion was around bringing the massing of entrances down.
Member Schneider echoed Member Katz’ comments and stated the redesign has improved the entrances.
Member Hogestad stated the concerns were about the bulk and mass of the components of the buildings that
happened to be the entries. He stated the entry design has suffered somewhat from trying to scale down the bulk
and mass. He stated a deliberate entry, not a grand entry, has been lost in the redesign.
Member Hogestad asked if there is any striping on the street-like private drives or in the parking lot that signal bike
lanes. Mr. McBreen replied in the negative noting the street-like private drives were designed to mimic Fort Collins
Planning & Zoning Board
January 21, 2021
Page 4 of 11
local streets which do not have bike lanes. He outlined the standards and stated there is plenty of room for bicycles
to travel.
Member Hogestad asked if there are pedestrian crossings in parking lots. Mr. McBreen replied the layout does not
encourage pedestrians to walk through parking lots. He also noted the parking is disbursed to lessen the chances
of pedestrians needing to walk through parking lots.
Member Hogestad noted the outer walkway also connects to parking lots.
Member Schneider expressed appreciation for the work on the redesign and stated his main concern was the
building massing which has been addressed. He stated he would support the project moving forward.
Member Shepard agreed with Member Schneider and emphasized the entries could be enhanced with additional
seating, which the applicant team has acknowledged.
Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the H25 Multi-
Family Project PDP 200004 based on the findings of fact and information provided during the work session,
this hearing, and discussion, and includes information, analysis, finding of fact and conclusion contained
in the staff report, including the agenda materials for the hearing that are adopted by this Board. Member
Katz seconded the motion.
Vote: 6:0.
(**Secretary’s Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
5. King Soopers #146 Midtown Gardens Marketplace
Manno stated no additional information has been received since the work session.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Kai Kleer, City Planner, discussed the site noting it is northwest of the intersection of South College Avenue and
West Drake Road. He noted this store will replace the existing King Soopers and stated the project is located with
the tax increment district for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and the applicant will be requesting
funding from the URA for street improvements and potentially for partial funding of the pedestrian promenade along
the west side of the site.
Kleer stated the property is zoned General Commercial and is about 11.13 acres in size. He noted this site was
deemed as a critical redevelopment site as part of the 2009 Midtown Redevelopment Study. He stated the project
would demolish the existing K-Mart, the Radio Shack building, and the existing gas station, and construct a new
King Soopers Marketplace and fuel center with associated parking. He noted there are four proposed modifications
of standard and one condition of approval.
Don Forest, King Soopers, stated this proposal would replace the King Soopers that is just to the north of this site
and construct a 123,000 square foot King Soopers Marketplace, fuel center, and retail pad sites. He stated the
plan would be to open in the summer of 2022 if the project is approved.
Karl Schmedtlein, Galloway and Company stated King Soopers purchased this property in 2008 and provided
shared parking spaces for the MAX line which opened in 2014. He discussed the goal of tree preservation on the
site and stated much of the existing infrastructure will also be maintained. He stated the existing King Soopers
store would be repurposed with a new tenant and noted the proposed design of the site improves the pedestrian
access to the MAX BRT station.
Aaron McClain, Site Development Project Manager, detailed the project scale and relationship of the proposed
store to the existing buildings. He also discussed the proposed parking plan noting additional shared spaces have
been allotted for the MAX BRT station. He detailed vehicle and truck routing on the site and stated King Soopers is
Planning & Zoning Board
January 21, 2021
Page 5 of 11
working with the adjacent property owners to formalize a shared easement and access agreement that will benefit
the entire shopping center, which is a condition of approval for the PDP.
Mr. McClain mentioned the stormwater infrastructure plans for the project, discussed the reasons for not reusing
the existing fuel center and discussed the proposed new fuel center. He also discussed the new bus stop pull-out
on Drake Road and detailed preserved trees and the landscaping plan.
Anthony Fray, CR Architecture and Design, discussed the evolution of the project’s design since the original 2016
plans. He showed images of the rebranded store interiors. He detailed the site constraints that have led to
modification requests and provided details on construction materials and architecture.
Kleer discussed the access and circulation plan and provided detail regarding the requested modifications of
standard noting staff is supporting all four requests. The first standard for which a modification is being requested
relates to requiring direct and continuous connection from the street sidewalk system to the main entrance of the
building. He detailed the proposed plan which outlines an ‘equal to or better than’ approach by providing two
alternative walkways through the site.
Kleer stated the plan provides a comprehensive approach to landscaping with an adequate number, spacing, and
placement of landscape elements. He discussed the mitigation plan for the trees that will be lost on the site. He
stated the second modification request deals with the landscape setback frontage along South College Avenue.
Kleer discussed the building design and materials and detailed the third modification request relating to façades of
large retail buildings being modulated and creating a pedestrian scale and architectural interest. He stated the
modification is needed as the wall plane articulation does not exist; however, staff finds the approach of the
applicant meets the standard in an ‘equal to or better than’ way by using alternative articulation methods.
Kleer discussed the fourth requested modification which relates to a building orienting toward a street, connecting
walkway, plaza, or park, but not toward vehicle parking spaces. He stated staff has found that the plan meets this
standard in an ‘equal to or better than’ way and he also noted existing utility alignments, shared parking easement,
and enhanced architectural elements make the modification appropriate.
Kleer commented on the condition of approval which deals with the channelized T design within the College
Avenue right-of-way for movement into the primary drive aisle into the site and an access easement. He stated
staff is also recommending approval of this condition.
Vice Chair Haefele stated there are no neighborhood meeting notes in the packet and asked if that could be
summarized. She asked if there are 100 total parking spaces for use by MAX riders. Kleer replied there are 59
along Drake and 41 along the west portion of the site.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Christina Kaucher stated she would like to see additional bicycle separation and she expressed concern about
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and potential conflicts given the planned width of the multi-use sidewalk, bicycle
parking, and access from Drake, specifically related to bike lanes. She asked if the Drake access will be right-in,
right-out only.
Craig (no last name given) asked about the traffic flow on the north side of the building between it and existing
businesses.
Mr. Schmedtlein stated there is an 11-space bike rack at the north entry and additional bike parking is provided at
the central plaza area. He also stated there is a median along Drake and the west access point will be maintained
as a right-in, right-out. The other Drake access will be limited to a ¾ access allowing a left turn in, but no left turn
out. Regarding the traffic flow on the north side of the building, he stated the existing drive lane will be maintained.
Nicole Hahn, Interim City Traffic Engineer, stated there is a plan for some improvements at College and Drake that
will be handled as a larger capital project. She noted the multi-use sidewalk would only be used by bikes when a
bus is dwelling in the bike lane.
Planning & Zoning Board
January 21, 2021
Page 6 of 11
Vice Chair Haefele stated it is not ideal to have bikes moving from bike lanes to sidewalks.
Board Questions / Deliberation
Member Schneider expressed concern about the movements of delivery truck traffic throughout the project. Mr.
Schmedtlein replied trucks will travel from College Avenue on the west side of the fuel center and west along the
northern property line then south to the three truck wells. Trucks will exit onto Drake Road. He stated there are
likely to be three deliveries per day to the King Soopers.
Member Schneider commented on issues with traffic behind the North College King Soopers and expressed
concern this will be even higher traffic given the shared parking spaces plus truck traffic. He asked how the traffic
will flow. Mr. Schmedtlein replied two-way traffic will likely remain and noted the 41 spaces were requested to be
included by the City. He stated it is likely those spaces will be more for long-term users. He stated enhanced
signage could be used to help with safety.
Member Shepard asked about the interim condition and erosion control for the gas station that is going to be
demolished. Mr. Schmedtlein replied the plan is for a curved edge that will be stabilized with irrigated seeding. He
noted there is market interest for the pad site.
Member Shepard asked if there will be fencing in the interim condition and if the trees will be preserved. Mr.
Schmedtlein replied fencing is not proposed. Sarah Adamson, Galloway Landscape Architect, replied two trees
along the right-of-way are being lost and two green ash trees will also be lost. She stated the trees will be mitigated
with the exception of the green ash.
Member Hogestad asked if the parking lot reconfiguration is causing the majority of tree removals. Ms. Adamson
replied about 12 of the lost trees are green ash, which were deemed undesirable, 4 were already dead, and the
enlarging of the building to the east caused the loss of the front row of trees. She discussed the tree preservation
plan.
Member Hogestad expressed concern about the possibility of transient activity increasing with the approval of the
landscaping modification and wall.
Chair Hansen suggested that is a broader conversation around site walls in the community.
(**Secretary’s Note: Due to technical issues, Chair Hansen allowed additional public input at this point in the
meeting.)
Ina Sweck expressed concern related to parking and suggested there may be a need for traffic calming.
Mr. Schmedtlein stated there is a total of 393 parking spaces, which exceeds the Code requirements, plus the
additional shared spaces. He acknowledged the parking does wrap around the site to some extent but stated the
store model is more urban and has multi-modal access. Regarding traffic calming, he stated the north-south drive
along the front of the store does meander, which serves to calm traffic in itself. Additionally, there are a number of
material changes. He stated there is a raised walkway on the drive closer to College.
Member Shepard asked about the square footage of the fuel center kiosk. Mr. Schmedtlein replied it is about 200
square feet and is not accessible to the public; it is just used for the employee.
Member Shepard asked if the length of the screen wall along College Avenue in front of the fuel facility matches the
length of the fuel facility to screen headlights. Kleer replied in the affirmative and stated it also wraps around the
fuel station.
Member Shepard asked about the relationship of the screen wall and the proposed trees. Kleer replied the tr ees
are to the east of the screen wall and are essentially on the property line.
Planning & Zoning Board
January 21, 2021
Page 7 of 11
Member Shepard asked about the distance from the screen wall to the back of the sidewalk. Kleer replied that
would vary between 2.9 feet and 3.9 feet and there is about 6.9 feet of space where one new tree is proposed.
Member Shepard asked if there are any evergreen plantings in front of the screen wall. Ms. Adamson replied the
whole street frontage is a mix of ornamental grasses, evergreen shrubs, deciduous shrubs, and a few perennials.
Member Schneider noted this does not comply with the Midtown Plan in terms of density and not being mixed-use.
He asked if there was ever any discussion of doing a mixed-use development. Kleer replied that was a
conversation staff had with the applicant team prior to even the 2016 plans. Mr. Schmedtlein replied there were
discussions around that a few years ago. He stated the stores in other states that have associated housing in
upper levels have not proven to be in the best interest of King Soopers. He stated he was not part of the detailed
conversations with housing developers which did not come to fruition. He noted there was some discussion about
future urban infill development that may provide additional opportunities.
Clay Frickey stated various discussions have occurred with the Urban Renewal Authority over the past years but
not with the most recent submittal.
Member Schneider asked why the mixed-use discussions have not occurred with this submittal. Kleer replied the
conversation about the intent of the Midtown Plan did occur at preliminary design review; however, a business
decision was made by King Soopers to not move forward with the mixed-use plan.
Mr. Forest stated a mixed-use development is not financially viable for King Soopers. He noted parking is already
tight on the site and stated there are few mixed-use grocer developments in the country that meet financial goals
and those are in predominately heavily urban areas.
Member Shepard asked Mr. Forest if he considered Villa Italia to be urban or suburban. Mr. Forest replied that is
more of a suburban higher-density market.
Member Shepard asked about the modification request to Section 3.5.4, the big box standards for façades and
exterior walls, specifically how much the pilasters project off the wall plane. Mr. Schmedtlein replied they project
four inches.
Member Shepard asked about the distance between the north wall and the access drive. Kleer replied the truck
route is anticipated to be contained within a 28-foot access easement which would overlay the existing drive aisle.
He stated he believes the distance from the face of the wall to the edge of the northernmost portion of the
landscape island is 65 feet.
Member Shepard asked why the big box standards cannot be met on the north elevation. Mr. Schmedtlein replied
it is actually about 52 feet from the edge of the building to the edge of the landscape island and noted the pharmacy
drive-up area is on the east end of the north building line and stated the westerly half of the building is dedicated to
Click List parking and associated circulation.
Member Shepard stated there do not appear to be any site constraints that prevent the north elevation from
complying with Section 3.5.4. Mr. Fray replied the traffic pattern is up against the building and noted there is a one-
foot curb against the building that is basically just to keep cars off the building.
Member Shepard suggested there may be opportunities on the western part of the north elevation to further comply
with Section 3.5.4. Mr. Fray stated there is one other constraint with the Building Code related to fire truck access.
(**Secretary’s Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and roll call was taken upon return.)
Member Shepard asked about the landscaping in the promenade area and about the relationship of the sidewalk to
the parking and access drive, location of the trees, and interval on which the trees are spaced. Ms. Adamson
replied there is a mixture of large deciduous trees, evergreen trees, and understory trees spaced as tightly as
reasonable to create a solid barrier to screen the back of the building from the MAX bus line. She noted the original
plan was to include a second row of trees with the promenade; however, the addition of the parking made that not
Planning & Zoning Board
January 21, 2021
Page 8 of 11
feasible, so landscaped islands were included where possible. At the back of the parking, the sidewalk will
continue to the bus line.
Member Shepard asked if vehicles would overhang the sidewalk. Ms. Adamson replied that is possible and she
stated wheel stops could be considered; however, they may not be necessary given the width of the sidewalk.
Member Shepard asked about the width of the sidewalk. Kleer replied the sidewalk is 7.5 feet wide and the
landscape strip between the MAX line and the edge of sidewalk is 15 feet.
Member Shepard encouraged the design team to consider wheel stops to preserve the entire width of the sidewalk.
Ms. Adamson replied the sidewalk could be widened as there is no understory planting in the area; however, that
would reduce the landscaping.
Chair Hansen mentioned concerns about the bicycle traffic being directed behind the bus stop. He suggested the
inclusion of some dismount zones or signage. Mr. Schmedtlein replied his team could work with staff on that.
Vice Chair Haefele stated she would prefer some signage that warns motorists that bicycles may take the full lane
rather than having a dismount zone. Chair Hansen agreed that is a good solution.
Member Schneider suggested a possible condition requiring traffic calming on the west side of the building noting it
is a high-use area. Chair Hansen agreed traffic calming measures would be prudent.
Member Shepard asked if the east-west walkway from the MAX to the south entrance of the store is raised as it
crosses the drive aisle. Mr. Schmedtlein replied it is not raised but is an alternative material. He stated his team
can work with staff on traffic calming or signage.
Member Shepard stated a raised sidewalk could act as a speed table.
Vice Chair Haefele asked if it would be possible for one-way traffic to function on the west side of the building.
Chair Hansen commented on his understanding that it needs to be two-way. Mr. Schmedtlein concurred and noted
it is the truck access for all buildings to the north as well.
Member Shepard commented on the amount of product display and vending machines outside the fuel station
kiosk on North College and suggested the shrubs along the screen wall will need to be significantly higher than the
wall to keep those items from being seen from South College Avenue. Chair Hansen suggested wing walls could
also work. Member Shepard concurred and stated the building could also be made larger to house those items.
Member Shepard asked why projecting modules cannot extend further out on the south, west, and north elevations.
He cited an example on the Drake and Timberline King Soopers. Mr. Fray replied there are similar elements in the
plan that extend about a foot but could be extended.
Member Shepard stated the plan does not quite meet the roofline standard per Section 3.5.4. Mr. Fray replied that
could be examined.
Chair Hansen stated the projecting elements could be made to appear deeper by extending it inside the building
footprint at the roof level. Mr. Fray replied a parapet return could be used.
Member Shepard emphasized the need to vary the roofline. He asked about the use of combed face block and
expressed concern it will look smooth from a distance. He noted smooth face block is prohibited. Mr. Fray replied
it is more of a textured brick; however, he stated they would be open to using a different material.
Member Shepard noted the fuel center lighting must be flush mounted and flat lens. Mr. Schmedtlein replied it is
flat, clear tempered glass lens.
Member Shepard asked if the truck screen wall matches the building both horizontally and vertically and whether
the pilasters project in any way along the length of the wall. Mr. Fray replied the pilasters project about four inches
and the wall height varies.
Planning & Zoning Board
January 21, 2021
Page 9 of 11
Member Shepard asked if the furniture in the central gathering area will be movable. Mr. Fray replied it can be.
Ms. Adamson replied that level of detail has yet to be determined. Member Shepard stated movable furniture is
key to an outdoor gathering area.
Member Shepard encouraged the design team to mitigate the pedestrian experience with heavy tree lining and
more evergreen trees and shrubs for parking lot mitigation.
Member Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification
of standards request for Section 3.10.3(A), building orientation in the transit-oriented development zone,
based on the findings of fact in the staff report. The modification will not be detrimental to the public good
and meets the criteria in Section 2.8.2(H) for an equal to or better than justification. Member Schneider
seconded the motion.
Member Schneider made a friendly amendment that the modification meets criteria 1 and 4 of Section 2.8.2(H).
Member Shepard accepted the amendment.
Vote: 7:0.
Member Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification
of standards request for Section 3.2.2(J), setbacks for a vehicular use area, based on the findings of fact in
the staff report. The modification will not be detrimental to the public good and meets the criteria in
Section 2.8.2(H) for an equal to or better than justification. Member Schneider seconded the motion.
Member Hogestad expressed concern there is social implication that is detrimental to the public good and stated he
will not support the motion. He stated something other than a wall could be used.
Member Shepard encouraged the design team to emphasize the use of a variety of evergreens to mitigate the
exposure of a large parking lot along South College Avenue.
Vote: 6:1 with Member Hogestad dissenting.
Member Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification
of standards request for Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a), directness and continuity, with a condition that the applicant
must comply with Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(b) which would require the connecting walkway from the MAX that
goes eastward to the south entry to be raised and that more trees are placed along the walkway leading
from College Avenue to the east entrance, based on the findings of fact in the staff report. The
modification will not be detrimental to the public good and meets the criteria in Section 2.8.2(H) for an
equal to or better than justification. Vice Chair Haefele seconded the motion.
Vice Chair Haefele agreed with the condition.
Vote: 7:0.
Member Shepard congratulated the design team on their work on the constrained site but stated he is concerned
about the remaining modification request.
Member Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification
of standards request for Section 3.5.4(D)(1)(a)(1) subject to the applicant and design team further
embellishing the façades and exterior walls on the south, west, and west half of the north elevations to
further comply with the standard to the maximum extent feasible and further compliance with Section
3.5.4(D)(1-4) related to rooflines as discussed, based on the findings of fact in the staff report. The
modification will not be detrimental to the public good and meets the criteria in Section 2.8.2(H) for an
equal to or better than justification.
Planning & Zoning Board
January 21, 2021
Page 10 of 11
Member Schneider requested additional information regarding Member Shepard’s roofline condition. Member
Shepard replied he does not believe the current plan meets the standard and provided detail as to how that could
be done.
Member Schneider expressed concern a peak or rounded form would cause the visual effect to be lost. He stated
he prefers the proposed flat roof line.
Member Hogestad seconded the motion.
Member Hogestad expressed concern about using a return parapet stating they do not typically weather well. He
stated roof height variations are probably the most effective solution.
Member Schneider stated he would prefer keeping the rooflines as minimal as possible without peak lines.
Member Katz questioned whether the condition is necessary.
Member Hogestad stated he would not like to force any major design changes.
Member Shepard stated the roofline standard works in conjunction with façades and walls and stated he would like
the applicant to consider improving all of those elements in combination in order to meet the standard. He noted
there are a variety of ways to do this.
Member Schneider stated he would be more supportive of roofline conditions if they were only applied to the front
side of the building. Member Shepard noted the MAX line will provide a greater level of visibility to the rear of the
building. Chair Hansen and Vice Chair Haefele agreed with Member Shepard.
Chair Hansen commented on the west elevation being more in compliance than the north and south elevations and
stated he is please with the design of the west elevation.
Vote: 7:0.
Member Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the King
Soopers Store #146, PDP200012 in conjunction with the staff recommended condition of approval, based
on the findings of fact and information provided during the work session, this hearing, and discussion, and
including information, analysis, finding of fact and conclusion contained in the staff report, including the
agenda materials for the hearing that are adopted by this Board. Member Schneider seconded the motion.
Member Schneider commended the work on the project and reiterated his desire for traffic calming on the west side
of the building.
Chair Hansen commended the plan but did express disappointment that the Midtown Plan’s desire for multi-use
buildings is not coming to fruition on the site.
Member Katz stated he is grateful this project will help revitalize Midtown.
Vote: 7:0.
Other Business
None.
Planning & Zoning Board
January 21, 2021
Page 11 of 11
Adjournment
Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 p.m.
For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here:
https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING
Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: March 11, 2021
Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director Jeff Hansen, Chair